Weight of Evidence

Weight of Evidence

weight-of-evidence

There is no experiment performed by any evolutionist that has either observed or confirmed the theory of evolution, although they claim the “weight of the evidence” proves it.  This is a common thread in non-theistic and atheistic literature in the misguided attempt to convince others that their point of view is correct.  This is a glaring error in logic and the rest of this article will describe the improper use of this terminology.

The legal definition of “weight of evidence”:

“Measure of credible proof on one side of a dispute as compared with the credible proof on the other…. .”

“The weight of evidence is based on the believability or persuasiveness of evidence…  Particular evidence has different weight in inducing belief with respect to the facts and circumstances to be proved. Evidence that is indefinite, vague, or improbable will be given less weight than evidence that is direct and unrefuted.”

“The judge may not state that any particular piece of admissible evidence is or is not entitled to receive weight or consideration from the jury.  The judge is also forbidden either to aid a jury or to infringe upon its role in weighing the evidence or in deciding upon the facts. In addition, the judge, in giving her instructions to the jury, has no right to prescribe the order and manner in which the evidence should be examined and weighed by the jury, or to tell the jurors how they shall consider any evidence that has been received by the court.”

(West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Notice the last paragraph above.  It warns the judge is not to do anything to try to sway the jury’s opinion in any way shape or form.  That is what the evolutionists are trying to accomplish.  They have a virtual lock with the liberalized media and the school systems.  They are trying to tell you, the individual (or jury member to complete the analogy), what to think about the slanted point of view they are trying to propagate as “truth”.

weight of evidence

  1. the strength, value and believability of evidence presented on a factual issue by one side as compared to evidence introduced by the other side.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

 

You will notice that the evolutionists never present the creationists point of view, or dare to compare the points of view side by side.  I know that I am slanted toward one side, but I sincerely believe that I try to present the point of view I disagree with fairly and then present the overwhelming facts I have that disproves or definitely sheds doubt upon the point of view.

 

preponderance of the evidence

  1. the greater weight of the evidence required … to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

balony_detection

It is true that science is always subject to change as new information comes in.  That is why our faith is not to be in the arguments, but in the Word of God itself.  For both creationists and evolutionists, there will always be unsolved research challenges, changing arguments and unanswered riddles.  However, by swaying back and forth, we are sustaining the myth that the road to ultimate truth in such matters is by human reasoning, not revelation.

As we try to explain, though, it’s not a matter of ‘creation facts’ vs ‘evolution facts’ because—and this is a key point—both creationists and evolutionists actually have the same facts.  We all observe the same fossils, the same DNA and have exactly the same universe to discover. But we all interpret these facts according to our pre-existing worldview presuppositions.  That worldview, in turn, then enables us to interpret these facts and they become ‘evidence’ for our cause. For example, when an evolutionary geologist looks at the many sedimentary layers in the walls of the Grand Canyon, he ‘sees’ it as evidence for millions of years of Earth history.  This is due to his pre-existing belief (from what he’s been taught in the classroom) that these layers built up from slow, gradual deposition of sediments, year after year.  However, a creationist geologist can interpret the exact same facts (i.e. layers in the canyon walls) and see these as evidence for Noah’s catastrophic, globe-covering Flood.  Neither one was there to see those layers form in the past.

In short, there are no facts, which can force a conclusion one way or the other when it comes to trying to determine what happened in the unobservable, unrepeatable past.  When making a judgment on which set of facts/evidences makes more sense, both sides bring their own worldviews, experiences and biases to the table.

So, what you believe about where we all came from (our history) is a key to your interpretation of the facts. Science is changeable anyway.  No scientist can presume to know everything there is to know.  The best ‘evidence’ today (or rather one’s interpretation of it), can quickly be relegated to the trash can in the light of a new discovery tomorrow that we didn’t know about today!  That is how even observable, testable and repeatable science works

So the real issue is helping everyone, even evolutionists, to understand that we all wear biased ‘glasses’ or filters that cause us to see the facts in certain ways.

Just because someone doesn’t think anything will ever contradict a belief they hold doesn’t mean they have an answer for every objection to their belief.  Biblical creationists confess ignorance on a variety of things, and I readily admit that there are unresolved issues in the interpretation of the physical evidence.  I readily admit that there are plenty of interpretations of scientific evidence that conflict with biblical creation, though I would reject those interpretations, and not the data that they are based on.

Advertisements

One response to “Weight of Evidence

  1. Pingback: Truth or Consequences -pt1 | I Am Not An Atheist·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s